Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not handle his homelessness application correctly. He said this left him in unsuitable accommodation that he should not have to pay for. The Council was at fault for delaying Mr X’s application. This did not cause Mr X an injustice. This is because the Council found Mr X an immediate placement in a shelter and progressed his referral into settled accommodation in a timely manner.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that when he was made homeless, the Council:
• denied his homeless application;
• provided unsuitable temporary accommodation;
• did not tell him that he had to pay for the temporary accommodation;
• did not take account of his vulnerability and disabilities;
• has not been responding to his calls and emails; and
• has breached data protection by sharing details of his situation with his sister.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response and the supporting information provided by both parties.
6. I have also considered the relevant national legislation and guidance, and local policy.
7. Mr X and the Council commented on my initial and revised draft decisions. They also provided further information. I have considered the comments and information.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Housing Act 1996 (Part 7) outlines councils’ duties to those who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 amends this legislation but only for applications made after 3 April 2018. Mr X’s made a homelessness application in November 2017.
9. The law requires councils to consider a homelessness application if it has reasons to believe the person may be homeless or threatened with homelessness.
10. Section 175 of the Act sets out the definition of a person that is homeless or threatened with homelessness.
11. Section 183 refers to the act of making an application for assistance.
12. Section 188 requires councils to secure accommodation pending inquiries. This accommodation must be suitable and as far as reasonably practicable in the Council’s area.
13. The Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 Part 6 (43) says that a person is not entitled to housing benefit if their income exceeds £16,000.
14. Local Housing Allowance (LHA) is the way that housing benefit is calculated and paid to tenants of private landlords. The Valuation Office Agency determines LHA rates. These are based on private market rents in the area. In the area where Mr X lives, the rate for 2017/18 was £100.05.

What happened

15. On 30 November 2017, Mr X approached the Council for help after his sister asked him to leave her accommodation. He said the Council told him the local Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) should make a homelessness application in writing on his behalf.

Night shelter and original homelessness application

16. Records from the local night shelter show the Council referred Mr X to the local night shelter on 30 November, where he stayed the night.
17. On 1 December, the CAB wrote to the Council. The CAB asked the Council to accept the letter as a formal application for assistance for Mr X under section 183 Housing Act 1996.
18. The CAB went on to say that Mr X has medical conditions that make him significantly vulnerable and he has a priority for accommodation. The CAB asked that the Council provide Mr X with interim accommodation under section 188 Housing Act 1996 until the Council notifies him of its homelessness decision.
19. The Council said Mr X withdrew his homelessness application on 12 December. I have seen an email from Mr X’s representative at the CAB which confirms this. Mr X said he did not withdraw his application.
20. The Council said it supported Mr X to progress his referral to settled accommodation during his stay in the shelter. It said this was to ensure that Mr X left the shelter in a planned way.

Interim accommodation and second homelessness application

21. On 26 December 2018, the manager of the shelter excluded Mr X from the night shelter due to his behaviour. Mr X says the reasons for his exclusion are not true.
22. Following Mr X’s exclusion from the shelter, he made a homelessness application to the Council. The Council placed Mr X in interim accommodation (hotel including B&B) on 28 December 2018.
23. The hotel was in a neighbouring council area. The Council said there was no accommodation available within its own area. It said that the Council deemed this accommodation suitable in the short term given the emergency nature of its provision. Mr X says this accommodation was not suitable as it was too far away from his home town and he knew no one.
24. At this time, the Council completed a Housing Assessment Form that Mr X signed. In addition, Mr X signed an agreement in relation to the accommodation provided by the Council. This included ‘Conditions of Occupancy’ which say ‘you must pay all charges due to the Council in respect of the occupation. This is £_ per night…’ The Council did not specify an amount here.
25. Mr X remained in the accommodation for 26 nights. During this time, the Council determined that Mr X was not entitled to Housing Benefit as he was about to start full time work on a salary of £17,000.
26. The Council arranged for a meeting between Mr X and a Council money adviser on 5 January 2018. The adviser said they completed an income and expenditure form. She said she advised Mr X to make payments of £600 per month towards interim accommodation costs. The Council has said this amount included travel and food expenses. She said that his interim accommodation costs were higher than £600 but that they came up with an agreement that would be affordable to Mr X. To date, Mr X has not paid anything towards his interim accommodation.

Settled accommodation

27. The Council says it worked with a local Trust (a local housing transitions service) to secure accommodation for Mr X. On 23 January, Mr X moved into his current accommodation.
28. On 26 January, the Council made its Homelessness Application Decision. It concluded that Mr X was eligible for assistance but that he was not homeless. Its reason for this decision was given as: ‘Since making your Homelessness Application you were successful in securing accommodation…I am satisfied therefore, that as the accommodation is available and reasonable for your continued occupation that you are not homeless as defined by section 175 of the Act’.
29. In March 2018, the Council sent Mr X a bill of £1248.00 for the 26 nights he spent in interim accommodation. Mr X did not pay this. In August, he received a bill for a further £48.
30. I have seen extensive correspondence from September 2018. This includes letters and emails between Mr X, the Council, Mr X’s MP and Mr X’s brother. Some of the emails from Mr X and his brother are aggressive and threatening.
31. The Council provided a Stage 1 response to Mr X’s complaint about his outstanding interim accommodation debt on 26th September.
32. The Council’s response breaks down Mr X’s housing situation from November 2017 until the present. It goes on to explain the Council does not provide interim accommodation for free. It says that Mr X signed the agreement confirming his responsibility for the accommodation costs on 28 December.
33. The Council explained the extra £48 was an error and Mr X was not liable for it. It also said that it accepted that Mr X’s income was insufficient to enable him to meet his interim accommodation charges in full.
34. The Council then said Mr X should pay £423.24 for his 26 nights in interim accommodation. This comprises £371.61 rent (based on the one-bedroom Local Housing Allowance Rate of £100.05 per week) and £51.63 service charges.
35. Mr X asked that his complaint be escalated to Stage 2 of the complaints process. The Council’s Stage 2 response made the same conclusions as its Stage 1 response.

Analysis

Homeless application

36. Mr X first approached the Council on 30 November and he was told to see the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB). The CAB then formally wrote to the Council the next day asking it to treat Mr X as homeless and vulnerable.
37. The Council offered Mr X a night shelter place on 30 November where he consistently stayed for 26 nights.
38. The Council said that Mr X’s representative from the CAB confirmed that Mr X withdrew his homelessness application on 12 December in favour of continuing assistance via the night shelter.
39. Mr X said he did not withdraw his application. I have considered whether the outcome would have been any different whether Mr X withdrew the application, or not.
40. The Council said it was supporting Mr X and progressing his referral into settled accommodation for the duration of his stay in the night shelter. If this was the case, it would have made no difference to Mr X’s situation if the Council treated his homelessness application as active or withdrawn.
41. When Mr X was excluded from the shelter the Council accepted a new homelessness application and provided interim accommodation for him.
42. The Council was at fault for not accepting a homelessness application from Mr X when he first approached them on 30 November.
43. However, there is no injustice. This is because the Council found Mr X an immediate placement in a shelter and progressed his referral into settled accommodation in a timely manner.

Unsuitable temporary accommodation

44. The Council says the interim accommodation was suitable given the emergency nature of Mr X’s situation. It says there were no options available in Mr X’s home town at the time.
45. The Council was aware that Mr X was due to start a new job on 2 January in his hometown. It said it considered his public transport costs as part of the income and expenditure assessment.
46. The type of accommodation meant that Mr X had no cooking facilities. He therefore had to rely on takeaways or similar for 26 days. This would have had cost implications. The Council said this was accounted for in the income and expenditure assessment.
47. The Council says the money advisor considered Mr X’s income and expenditure on 5 January. It says the £600 that was deemed affordable to Mr X included travel and food expenses.

Payment for the temporary accommodation

48. On 28 December Mr X signed the agreement for his interim accommodation, including costs. I have seen a copy of the agreement and the cost per night was not filled in.
49. The Council has said this amount was intentionally left blank. It said Mr X was advised the charges would be agreed during the meeting with the Council money advisor.
50. The Council arranged for Mr X to meet with a Council money adviser on 5 January. I have seen the adviser’s notes following the meeting. The adviser said that they ‘came up with an agreement that would be affordable to Mr X’. It is not clear what this was.
51. In March 2018, Mr X was sent a bill for the full commercial cost of staying in the hotel (£48 per night x 26 nights).
52. In its Stage 1 response, the Council agreed to reduce Mr X’s accommodation debts based on the Local Housing Allowance Rate.
53. The Council said this lower amount took account of the Council’s new temporary accommodation charging policy which came into effect on 2 July 2018.
54. Although the actual cost per night for the interim accommodation was not specified, it appears that Mr X did sign an agreement to pay the relevant fees. The adviser could have been clearer as to what these fees would be and what they covered.

Mr X’s vulnerability and disabilities

55. When Mr X initially approached the Council on 30 November, there is no indication the Council assessed his situation in terms of whether he had a priority need. The Council said it will try and find accommodation for people, regardless of priority need.
56. The CAB specifically identified Mr X’s medical needs and vulnerability in its letter to the Council stating that he had a priority need. There is no evidence the Council treated this as a formal homelessness application. However, the Council did find a place in a shelter for Mr X the same day.
57. The Council worked with a local Trust to find Mr X his current accommodation. The Trust specifically work with people going through tough times. This demonstrates the Council had identified Mr X’s needs and were trying to find suitable accommodation and help for him. By placing Mr X in supported housing as opposed to standard accommodation, the Council were considering his long-term needs.

Response to calls and emails

58. I have seen the correspondence between Mr X and the Council. It is evident that Mr X was very frustrated and angry. However, it does not appear the Council actively ignored his calls or emails. The majority of correspondence took place in September. During this month, the Council responded to Mr X’s Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaint.

Agreed action

59. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will apologise to Mr X for:
• its delay in accepting Mr X’s homelessness application; and
• the unclear assessment of what was affordable to Mr X during his meeting with the money advisor and the subsequent unaffordable bill sent to him.
60. Mr X is liable to pay for his interim accommodation. The reduced amount of £423.24 seems logical and reasonable.

Back to top

Final decision

61. The Council was at fault for not accepting Mr X’s homelessness application when he first approached the Council in November 2017. This did not cause an injustice to Mr X. This is because the Council found Mr X an immediate placement in a shelter and progressed his referral into settled accommodation in a timely manner.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

62. I have not investigated the complaint that the Council breached data protection by sharing details of his situation with his sister.
63. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to investigate matters about data protection.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman